Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER Loss of control - Coggle Diagram
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
Loss of control
Once the D has fulfilled the actus reus and mens rea of murder, D’s conviction can be reduced to voluntary manslaughter, if the prosecution fail to disprove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant was acting under a loss of control.
There are 3 key requirements for the loss of control defence.
the D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D's loss of self-control,
the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger (anger or fear), and
a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.
The defendants act/omission in killing must have resulted from the loss of self-control.
Loss of self-control is assessed by looking at its literal meaning. As under the old law, whether the defendant actually lost control is a question for the jury, taking into account all of the evidence.
R v Richens
Facts:
Defendant killed a man after provocation and claimed he lost control.
Held:
Complete loss of awareness is not required. Defendant must be unable to restrain themselves, not just angry.
Principle:
Mere loss of temper is insufficient; there must be a genuine inability to control actions.
R v Ahluwalia
Facts:
Woman killed her abusive husband after years of violence, following a delay.
Held:
Delay does not automatically defeat the defence. Longer delay makes loss of control less likely but still possible.
Principle:
Loss of control need not be sudden; jury considers delay when deciding.
Qualifying trigger
For the loss of control defence, the defendant must show a trigger that caused the loss of control. There are two main types:
Fear of serious violence
(not just fear of violence — it must be serious violence)
Things said or done that are extremely grave
(Must cause a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged and it is not enough to feel annoyed or mildly wronged — it must be extreme)
Fear trigger
The defendant’s loss of control must be linked to fear of serious violence.
There’s no rule on how the fear should arise, so this trigger can apply broadly.
Different from self-defence (Self-defence only needs fear of violence whilst Loss of control needs fear of serious violence (Dawes, Hatter & Bowyer [2013]).
Designed for cases where D feared violence and reacted excessively.
D cannot rely on this trigger if they incited the violence to create an excuse.
Anger trigger
To use this trigger, 3 conditions must be met:
Things said or done (or both)
Circumstances of an extremely grave nature
Caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
LIMITATION
- D cannot rely on the anger trigger if:
D incited it as an excuse to use violence
the thing said/done constituted sexual infidelit
Circumstances of an extremely grave nature
Must be very serious, not everyday annoyances (
OBJECTIVE TEST
)
Grave = discovering child abuse.
Not grave = being sworn at or queue-jumped.
Thing said or done (or both)
There must be actual words or actions, not just circumstances.
R v Acott (1996)
– Losing control because of slow traffic is not enough.
Caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
Must be judged by society’s standards, not D’s personal beliefs.
Honour killing = NOT justifiable.
Finding a paedophile abusing your child = justifiable.
LIMITATION ON THE USE OF QUALIFYING TRIGGERS
The defence of loss of control cannot be used:
In an act of "considered desire for revenge"
As an excuse to use violence
If the thing said/done constituted sexual infidelity
if the defendant is charged with attempted murder
Considered desire for revenge
Defence fails if killing was motivated by planned revenge. This would cover cases where there is a clear evidence of planning.
"Considered" implies the defendant has had time to think about the qualifying trigger and therefore will not have lost self-control.
Excuse to use violence
Defence fails if D created the situation to provoke violence.
In the case of Clinton, it was held that excuse to use violence only applies if D intended from the start to provoke violence as an excuse. I t’s not enough that D “started it”; intent to provoke is required.
Sexual infidelity
(this was brought in to prevent defendants from using sexual infidelity as an excuse for killing).
Sexual infidelity alone cannot be a qualifying trigger.
R v Clinton
Facts:
Husband killed wife after discovering infidelity and other issues (threat to take children, taunts).
Held:
If sexual infidelity is part of a wider context (e.g., threats, humiliation), it can be considered.
Principle:
Jury must hear the whole story; sexual infidelity is excluded only when it is the sole trigger.
Attempted murder
Loss of control is not available for attempted murder.
Normal person test
Would a person of D’s age and sex, with normal tolerance and self-restraint, in D’s circumstances, have reacted similarly?
There are two steps. The jury will have to assess:
The gravity of the qualifying trigger to a person in the defendant’s circumstances; then
Whether as a result of that trigger a normal person might have done what the defendant did or something similar.
It is wholly objective:
The “normal person” has ordinary tolerance and self-restraint.
Jury cannot consider traits that reduce tolerance, like bad temper or intoxication.
Characteristics and Circumstances
Excluded when judging tolerance/self-restraint:
Bad temper
Intoxication
Extreme sensitivity
PTSD (R v Rejmanski)
Personality disorder (R v Rejmanski)
There are 3 categories to consider:
1. circumstances and characteristics will be taken into account;
2. circumstances and characteristics which will be excluded;
3, circumstances and characteristics which will be considered in assessing the magnitute of the qualifying trigger but ignored in assessing how much tolerance and self-restraint the normal man would have.
R v Rejmanski
Mental disorder can be considered for context (gravity of trigger), but not to lower the standard of tolerance/self-restraint.
Jury judges against normal standards, not D’s abnormal traits.
R v Wilcocks
Personality disorder making D more aggressive = irrelevant for loss of control.
But if disorder explains why taunts (e.g., about suicide attempts) hit harder, jury can consider that for gravity, not tolerance.
Clinton
Sexual infidelity cannot be a trigger alone, but can be considered as part of circumstances when judging gravity.
It is a partial defence to murder.
The burden of proof rests with the prosecution once the issue is raised. The prosecution need to prove that only one of the components is absent for the defence to fail.
It will be a matter for the judge to decide whether the defence can be put before the jury. The power of the judge to remove the issue of loss of control from the jury may prove to be a significant change from the old law of provocation,
If this defence is successful, the conviction is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter, which means that the defendant will avoid the mandatory life sentence.
As some aspects of the defence are yet to be defined and tested by the courts, you will be expected to rely on your statutory interpretation and analysis skills.